OpenDNS Tells Congress Not To Create The Great Firewall Of America

from the speak-up dept

When I went to Washington DC a few weeks ago with other entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, one of those whom I had the pleasure of meeting and walking the halls of Congress with was David Ulevitch, the CEO of OpenDNS, the world's largest DNS and internet security service. His service protects over 30 million people every day, and is currently used to protect people in approximately one-third of every public K-12 school. Hearing his story and his concerns about PROTECT IP and SOPA was really eye-opening. He's someone who clearly understands DNS and DNS/IP blocking better than probably anyone. And he told me that if SOPA were in place when he was first creating OpenDNS, he wouldn't have bothered. The liability would be just too great.

David has now penned an open letter to Congress, which we've embedded below, asking Congress to reject SOPA and PROTECT IP as being extremely bad bills that will have massive unintended consequences, hurting jobs and internet security at the same time. Here are just a few excerpts:

It’s likely that if SOPA and PIPA existed when I started my company, we would have incorporated outside of the United States and all of the jobs and investment that I have put into the economy would have been taken elsewhere. I expect many businesses will make the decision to incorporate elsewhere should this legislation pass and it’s possible that existing corporations will relocate to more entrepreneur-friendly countries.

My company invented many of the specific techniques that SOPA and PIPA would require all domestic Internet Service Providers and companies like mine to employ. Needless to say, we understand the censorship technology being proposed in this legislation and we are deeply concerned. While the aims of protecting IP and reducing piracy are noble, there are many reasons why SOPA and PIPA are dangerous as currently written. Here are the three that impact my business most:

It will, by definition, be overbroad, as there is no way to censor only illegal content without harming legitimate uses on sites as well. This is particularly true in light of the broad notion of “sites dedicated to infringing activity.”

Through their requirements to block websites, these bills will create a domestic Internet firewall designed to censor websites equivalent to the “Great Firewall of China” that is used to suppress information. If we implemented such a solution we would be setting a terrible example for the rest of the world, including countries we criticize for the same behavior like Iran, Syria, and China.

They will burden companies with an onerous level of liability for all user-generated content. What the bills propose would be akin to requiring the phone company to be responsible for the legality of every phone call that takes place. With that kind of regulation, companies will spend more on lawyers and litigation than they will on hiring and innovating. Existing laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act already provide a satisfactory legal framework to remove copyright infringement and enforce intellectual property rights.

It's difficult to argue that Ulevitch doesn't know what he talks about. He runs the largest DNS provider in the world. How much longer will Congress continue to ignore the people who actually understand the technology they're trying to regulate?

Re: Wait a minute

An incredible piece of FUD. Invoking the "great firewall of China" is a master stroke of overstatement, a wonderful way to try to talk to the baser sense on the Republican side to not be a communist.

His point 3 is actually the most telling here. "They will burden companies with an onerous level of liability for all user-generated content. ". It's true only if the companies (a) accept user generated content without considering what the content is, (b) accepting user content without knowing who the user is.

I suspect that the solution to much of the problems here will be sites having more documentation on the sources of content, and being willing to help rights holders to take action against those that publish illegal materials. Right now, their operations will put almost all of the liability on them, but that is a mistake in their business models that needs to be corrected. I am feeling that a site's willingness to deal with user generated content in a responsible manner will find themselves with few issues.

This is also very misleading. While it does provide a frame work for removal on individual case bases, it does not in any way make users or those websites have to modify their behaviours to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Rather than being a "oops" method that allowed for websites to have an out for an occassional issue, it has become the basis of their business models, which appear to be to infringe on everyone, all the time, and take down only what is specifically complained about. It goes against the basics of the copyright law, and only happens because of the very mechanism he points to as being successful for the content owners. While is isn't lying, he certainly is leaving out a whole bunch of reality.

Re:

"His service protects" -- but more of it will be harmful, eh?

Sounds like he sees SOPA as taking away his business -- which doesn't actually create jobs, those are funded by taxpayers to support public schools, are sheer overhead.

"He's someone who clearly understands DNS and DNS/IP blocking better than probably anyone." -- You constantly attempt to build up the "authority" of those whom you quote. It's just a lame attempt to add to your case. But as with anyone, the merits of the argument matter, not WHO is saying it. -- After all, the dinosaurs in Big Media surely know more about that than you do, Mike, yet you constantly tell them they're doing it all wrong.

Re: "His service protects" -- but more of it will be harmful, eh?

>>Sounds like he sees SOPA as taking away his business -- which doesn't actually create jobs, those are funded by taxpayers to support public schools, are sheer overhead.

Would it have been better for the US if the company had been funded overseas, and the US school money that currently stays in the US instead went to another country? Schools would need the service, but if it wasn't legal in then they would have to look elsewhere.

If your point is that schools are a waste of time and public schools are a theft of money from wealthy taxpayers to pay for education for the poor, then similar examples exist across all levels of business.

Re:

care to tell all of us here exactly what company you have? how big it is? what it has done to imrove the internet, the economy and job creation? perhaps also tell us why every other company should do the 'policing' on the internet for the entertainment industries, at their expense, instead of the entertainment industries doing it themselves, at their own expense? care to tell us why the US condemns other countries, like those mentioned above, for instigating and implementing censorship, then wants to do it as well?
i wait with bated breath for your bullshit excuses for supporting the proposed bill.

This should be interesting, in a slow motion train wreck sort of way. Here we have arguably the leading most authority on DNS (or the one in charge of these leading authorities anyway) telling congress they are about to commit online suicide on one side, and the industries trying to protect their legacy business models on the other.

The funny thing is, these guys are not mutually dependent. The AA's need DNS, DNS could care less about the AA's. So in true legacy-protect the middle man fashion, they are using politicians to force DNS to their will instead of adapting... As usual, this is going to backfire, and in a big way! When people starting routing around the damage, instead of having one big mole to whack, your going to have millions. They better start buying hammers! lol

Re:

Re:

But this is hardly surprising. Those of us who built the Internet (and the ARPAnet before it) have pointed out that legislation like this -- no matter how well-intentioned (and it's not), no matter how well-crafted (and it's not) -- will inevitably have consequences far beyond those envisioned by its supporters. It's just that those same supporters have inferior minds: they simply cannot comprehend the technical issues involved. It's beyond their pitifully feeble intellects. And so they blunder on, blindly, intent on inflicting damage, not caring, not understanding. They are fools, in every sense of the word.

Re:

First of all, in the US, there usually is no clear documentation on ownership of copyright. Copyright is given without any formality. Second of all, every site associating a user with the user's real identity would be problematic from both a privacy and logistics standpoint.

I would like to hear you outline a feasible system that you have vaguely outlined and waved your hand around. Currently, the internet is a robust ecosystem for creative expression and speech. Sometimes, bad actors do bad things with IP. But that is an acceptable price for the benefits the internet gives the public. Under your proposed system, control of the internet would effectively be given to the moneyed corporate content creators at the expense of the public's ability to freely express themselves.

If you dispute this, outline a system where your view and freedom of expression could feasibly be implemented.

For instance, what documentation would you require for me to : A) verify that I own the copyright on what I have just posted; and B) the documentation necessary to prove to you I am who I say I am?

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

No, what he's talking about is taking those millions of hours and getting rid of each and every one that isn't on a pre-approved list of content creators. That way the risk of copyright infringement is small and those who do can be targeted directly. He completely ignores the fact that this will destroy privacy, anonymity and also block most of new creators from getting a chance to start.

Think of what would happen to Youtube and expand that to the entire Internet. What's he's hoping for is making the Internet one way, a content delivery system only. What he's going to get is the complete destruction of the Internet.

Re: Re:

"trying to shut down opposition"

So then you admit that you were planning to use a (or a combination of a) "Random non sequitur" , or a "Random insult of mike" or a "random strawman" or a "random lame misdirection." as your opposition.

Re:

"it does not in any way make users or those websites have to modify their behaviours to make sure that it doesn't happen again."

And it was never intended to. If the content owner can identify who is infringing their rights then there are existing legal remedies for that individual. What you seem to want is to play a shell game where, since individual liability is not large enough on a case by case basis and purusing it is unpopular, instead the laws should be rewritten so they can hold third parties liable in aggregate. That's asinine. Holding a third party liable if they don't meet certain conditions is what goes against the basics of copyright law, indeed laws in general. The reality is the notice and take-down system is abused far more often by the content recording industry than it is the service providers. The service providers are using it exactly as it was intended to be used while Big Content is using on things they don't even own the rights to.

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

An incredible piece of FUD. Invoking the "great firewall of China" is a master stroke of overstatement, a wonderful way to try to talk to the baser sense on the Republican side to not be a communist.

Except, of course, that it works in exactly the same way. The only difference is that in these bills, you're imposing the "great firewall" around copyright infringement.

It certainly is not FUD. (And it has zero to do with communism.)

It's true only if the companies (a) accept user generated content without considering what the content is, (b) accepting user content without knowing who the user is.

Thanks for making the point for us, since every single site with user-generated content does one, or both, of the above. Including this one - something you should know, since you're talking advantage of (b) right now.

How the hell would any site with millions of user uploads "consider" what the content is? There is literally no way to do it.

This is also very misleading. While it does provide a frame work for removal on individual case bases, it does not in any way make users or those websites have to modify their behaviours to make sure that it doesn't happen again.

Other than, you know, taking down the content, and deleting the accounts of repeat offenders. And let's not forget that the notice-and-takedown system already favors rights holders over everyone else. To be fair, it should be changed to a "notice-counternotice-takedown" system.

The reality is that the DMCA was intended to work exactly as it is working right now. Pretending otherwise is just bullshit.

So, there was absolutely nothing whatsoever misleading about the statement.

Re: Re: Re:

He completely ignores the fact that this will destroy privacy, anonymity and also block most of new creators from getting a chance to start.

I don't think he's ignoring this at all. The internet has done a great job of destroying the gatekeeper role; by restricting content generation to a small "known" list of content generators you in effect put the gates and walls back up. Now a band CAN'T just give their music away for exposure; they once again have to go through one of the approved content generators and sell themselves into slavery to get any exposure at all.

I think this bill is more aimed at putting the walls and gates back up (and worse putting them back up and having them funded by taxpayers) than it is at piracy.

Re: Re: Re:

Since their speech almost always falls into one of those four categories, they won't have much to say if they can't use those conventions.

But maybe we should give them an example of an opposing view that doesn't involve ad hominem's.

For example:

"Hi Mike. I disagree with your viewpoint. I think inalienable intellectual property rights are so thoroughly abused by masses of poor people who prefer to pay for food, shelter, clothing, and to send their children to college instead of paying monopoly rents to large entertainment companies. I think SOPA is necessarily for the entertainment industry to have its way with anyone it suspects of violating its rights. I think (good) art wouldn't exist without well-compensated middle men, specifically the legacy companies already in existence. I don't believe these companies should have to adapt to technological paradigm shifts in our society, but that the technology should be adapted to maximizing profits for the shareholders in the top one percentile of wealthy people in the United States. Furthermore, I suspect that you are opposed to such legislation because you probably download copyright infringing material yourself, even though I have no solid evidence to support this assertion."

Re: Re: Re:

"What's he's hoping for is making the Internet one way, a content delivery system only."

This is, in a nutshell, exactly why the content industry is failing to adapt. They have always controlled the flow of their own content and the reality is the world doesn't operate that way anymore. No amount of legislation will put this genie back in the bottle. Techdirt, at it's heart and soul, is all about how to operate a business in this new reality because it is so obvious that the old methods simply don't apply. Not because everything must be free or we'll just copy at our own discretion (or lack thereof) but, because the content customer base is not being given the content they want, in the format(s) they choose, with the freedom to do as they wish with it, for an honest and reasonable price. The internet gives people the option to seek content elsewhere, at different prices, in almost any format and sometimes this content is free. Sometimes, it is the exact same content the gatekeeper could have sold if they knew how to deal with the new business methods and distribution models to service the customers that are waiting and willing to pay for their content.

"What he's going to get is the complete destruction of the Internet."

What he wants is complete complete control of the internet as a one way content delivery system. The problem is he doesn't understand how that whole internet system thingy works and that their is no magical bottleneck where he can set up his gate and collect the tolls he feels he is entitled to, just because he said so.

WTF?

So you are saying that you think that people who run websites or online service that allow people to publish their own content SHOULD screen all content and verify the identity of the user before allowing them to publish. Having to do that is EXACTLY what is meant by an "onerous level of liability". Those 2 things are extremely difficult and complicated to do and are and should be the responsibility of the publisher not of the provider of the service. Do you expect every ISP that offers web hosting services to vet every single piece of content uploaded and verify the identity of every account holder and determine whether the content violates somebodies IP. If it worked like that then there would be no web.

Re: Re:

I will start with you, because your post is perhaps the funniest of the bunch.

Let's start with the basics: My business, what I do, has no bearing on my opinions. NEXT!

"tell us why every other company should do the 'policing' on the internet for the entertainment industries" - This statement is wrong in so many ways, that it is beyond understand. Nobody is asking anyone to "police" anything, they are only asking them to obey the laws of the land in the same manner that any other publisher might have to do. If you accept user content, you also accept the risks that come with it. Website (magazines, newspapers, TV channels, anyone) should not be able to just say "Hey, I didn't know that this file containing all of the Star Wars movies was infringing". They answer should be "I didn't know if it was or not, so we didn't use it without checking".

All anyone asks is that online companies be held to the same standards as every other content medium out there.

Re: Re:

I have the utmost respect for Ulevitch and his company, his business, and his point of view. However, respect for him doesn't mean I swallow bullshit whole, sorry. What he is stating is true if you look at it in a narrow way, and ignore the overwhelming circumstances of the internet today. He is basically saying "Ignore the forest fire, look at this pretty flower". He isn't wrong that the flower is pretty, he just doesn't mention the forest fire burning right in front of him.

Do they care?

[quote]How much longer will Congress continue to ignore the people who actually understand the technology they're trying to regulate?[/quote]
Do they (Congress) care? They dance to the tune their biggest contributors (lobbyists) call. The RIAA, MPAA, and their ilk are ponying up $$million$$ to our representatives for their re-election campaigns, and the "Corporation is a Person" ruling by SOTUS means there isn't anything we, as normal people, can do about it. Fortunately, corporations cannot (yet) vote, so the best we can do is to throw the bums out and elect representatives that might actually deign to represent us...

Re: Re:

The issue isn't going to be random comment posts on a site, is it? That isn't the piracy issue anyone is attempting to address here. There isn't even any indication that the scope of the law would include it. That is part of the FUD, those who oppose the bill keep trying to push that it will cover every iota of everything online everywhere all the time, but they cannot show it.

I would say that most of them know that for practical purposes, there is a step where a law is taken from the written law and actually published in the gazette with information from the DoJ about how the law will actually be enforced, what is expected, what is acceptable, etc. I have little doubt that comment posting (and general forum discussions for that matter) will not be in the scope of any enforcement or policing. As a result, your freedom of expression is not lost, because there are no issues to deal with.

However, a forum filled with pirated movie links, information, reviews, and so on might find itself a target. Their permitting free and anonymous posting of the materials, and as an example having a "DVD RIPS" forum would certainly show intent, and make it a slam dunk.

"For instance, what documentation would you require for me to : A) verify that I own the copyright on what I have just posted; and B) the documentation necessary to prove to you I am who I say I am?"

This is where you have to learn the definition of "good faith". There is no "copyright license" issued by the state for our publishing. There is no documentation you can produce directly. But your good faith claims are very important. It's why the idea of "know your user", because knowing who is posting can shift the liablity to the provider, if the website can show that they operated in good faith, got a statement that the poster owns all copyrights, and that they made sure they know who is posting.

If you start from the assumption that the Mafiaa seem to be using, that ONLY pirates/criminals/bad people use these technologies, then it would naturally follow that only pirates, criminals and bad people understand the technology.

You don't invite Don Corleone to weigh in on a Congressional Committee considering law enforcement responses to organized crime, and Congress seems to be treating everyone but RIAA/MPAA along those lines in this.

If the good people are already being sought out for their input, then you don't need to hear from the bad people. And if your definition for criminality is "disagrees with the RIAA", then suddenly everything makes sense. Sucky sense, but nonetheless, sense.

Re: Re: Re:

Website (magazines, newspapers, TV channels, anyone) should not be able to just say "Hey, I didn't know that this file containing all of the Star Wars movies was infringing". They answer should be "I didn't know if it was or not, so we didn't use it without checking".

That way of doing things is massively inefficient.

How could Youtube check every item that is uploaded to it?

How do they even know who to ask?

Asking the uploader is largely pointless as there is no way to verify. So making them liable is completely impractical since they have NO way of knowing for sure. How can they be expected to make fair use determinations and be liable for it if many courts can't even agree? It just doesn't make sense to pin the responsibility to police content on the party least capable of knowing the facts.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

This would be a good way to kill the internet - look, as it stands right now - the internet, while a wonderful tool is NOT necessary for life.

People would quit using it as much as they do now. They may become fearful of downloading media, so they'll take it offline and rip CD's instead. Then it's back to sneaker-net instead of torrent - which is totally untraceable for all practical purposes.

People will end up at the library ripping movies and music, getting it from friends, or altogether just finding other avenues of entertainment.

If you outlawed libraries - book sales would not go up, yet they offer almost as much free printed media as you can consume, they also offer large selections of music as well.

And heck - you can copy 100 times the data on a LAN if a friend brings over a laptop as opposed to the internet. It may even result in people having MORE music for free.

See; people are hesitant knowing it's illegal to use torrent, but back them into a corner - and well.. if John Doe is going to bother to go over Jane's house to get music - why not get it ALL while he's there?

Heck, people might start to even have media sharing LAN parties... then it could REALLY swell in size.

Re:

I don't think they use those assumptions at all. All they are doing it looking out there, seeing what is going on, and saying "damn, most of the USENET content, most of the P2P stuff, and most of the file locker stuff is all pirated". Yes, each of those has some small or significant "legal" use as well, but it is clear that this is where the action is happening.

Here's an example: A local street in my area, going through an industrial park in development, features a long boulevard section, two lanes on either side, and about 4 intersections in a mile. But those intersections don't link to anything yet, because the site streets haven't been built. Effectively, you have a 1 mile long perfectly straight road, smooth as silk, with almost no normal traffic.

You can guess that the local street racers figured this out pretty quickly.

The city saw this, and came down and installed those bolt down speed bumps that you see all over the place. They are very effective. The racers? They just sent out their own crews to take them back out, restoring their racing track.

The city's final solution was much simpler. They closed one side of the boulevard at each segement, and made the traffic 1 lane each direct, and at each intersection, they have to change sides. So now the longest section is 1/4 mile with a solid concrete barrier at each point, and they put the speed bumps back in at each intersection.

The street racers are gone.

Does the new configuration make it harder for normal traffic? It sure does. It's a trade off between some inconvenience compared to people perhaps getting hurt or killed. Seems worth it, right?

Think of DMCA as a speed bump. It didn't work, and so the next step is to take more serious action.

Re: Re:

Tell me, AC 63, how do you determine whether a specific file is infringing or not? What specific processes did they use to make the determination that much of Usenet's content supposedly infringes? Answer this, as well, if you can: given two copies of a random .mp3 file, without being told their origin, what method would you use to determine which is infringing and which is not? There are no structural or operational differences between the two, so how do you tell them apart? Or will you admit that it is not possible to do so? That they are, in fact, identical?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You suck at being rude."

Um...I was trying not to be rude - that was the point. Thank you for confirming my success and for that lovely ad hominem. It really adds depth to the level of conversation and, I must concede, has persuaded me to completely change my mind regarding my positions on the matter. You have won me over, sir. Bully for you. Pip pip.

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

"Decided"? Pandora and the other Internet music delivery services that we fell in love with here in Canada sounded very apologetic that they were "legally" not allowed to deliver services to Canada any longer.

That to me says that the "stations themselves" did not make the decision. However, it may have been a pre-existing contractual obligation which is still not the same as a third-party block. Whatever it was, I think it traces back to the content industries and their concepts of gatekeeping.

Re: Re: Re:

I have little doubt that comment posting (and general forum discussions for that matter) will not be in the scope of any enforcement or policing. As a result, your freedom of expression is not lost, because there are no issues to deal with.

Re:

I think the point you're missing is that this type of legislation will make these new business models *impossible*. I.e. youtube, opendns and many other similar businesses would not exist if this legislation had existed at the time they were created. Can you not see the point that these businesses have created significant value, jobs, etc. and that the prevention of their existence would have been a negative for the economy? Can we not find a better way than to stomp out innovative new businesses, even if their creation disrupts existing business models?

I've long thought that this is a value proposition issue. The consumer value proposition (as opposed to overall economic value) for record labels, movie studios, etc. was the mass production and distribution angle. Now that any bozo with a computer can copy and paste a file, that value proposition is gone for the consumer, so piracy occurs. Consumers just don't get any direct benefit anymore. The content producers need to give people a value proposition again instead of just pointing to morality issues, which clearly haven't resonated.

BTW, thanks for your post. It's nice to see the opposing viewpoint make actual arguments instead of the usual name-calling and other crap.

Re: Re: Re:

The question was how does the site "show that they operated in good faith, got a statement that the poster owns all copyrights, and that they made sure they know who is posting"? You didn't answer, you just restated the question. :\

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think I can see the pre-approved list thing disguised in this:

> It's true only if the companies (a) accept user
> generated content without considering what the
> content is, (b) accepting user content without
> knowing who the user is.
>
> I suspect that the solution to much of the
> problems here will be sites having more
> documentation on the sources of content, and
> being willing to help rights holders to take
> action against those that publish illegal materials.

That documentation on sources of the content sounds like a pre approved list. YouTube says "hey, are you pre-authorized to upload content"?

Re: "His service protects" -- but more of it will be harmful, eh?

Hmmm...that's odd, I thought this guy ran a company called OpenDNS? He has a degree in Computer Science. Sounds like he does know what he's talking about.
As for the merits of the argument...you're wrong there partially. It does matter to some degree about WHO is saying it. The reason I don't trust the RIAA? It's because Mitch Glazier subverted the democratic process by rewriting a key bill in the middle of the night, then later getting a high paying job in the RIAA as a reward. Mitch could come out tomorrow and spew forth rainbows and sunshine, and I still wouldn't trust him. Same thing goes for VP Biden, he recently gave a speech that can be interpreted as being against SOPA...which is actually where his sympathies lie.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Absurd? Why yes, my ideas of laws and due process and innocents are absurd in todays guilty until proven innocent and executed by predator drone world. Forgive me if I still believe in principals and being good to our fellow humans, instead of the sham and scam that passes for democracy and freedom these days.

Answer me this, if all it takes for someone to take-down a video or site is to file a take-down notice, why bother having a court of law at all? If all it takes for you to be executed for crimes you might have committed or were thinking of committing, then why have a court of law at all? Honestly, lets stop pretend we're democracies and fly the flag of the fascist plutocracies we all know we are

Re:

Wow, that was almost logical, consistent, and well thought out. If only you had put as much effort into drafting the legislation as you're putting into shilling the legislation, the internet would be a much better place.

Re: New Internet

Now that I think about this a bit more, this really seems like DRM. All the people who know better and want the information are going to setup a network to get it, while the paying customers get screwed and pissed off that nothing works.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

So what happens if Vimeo, Break, Redtube, et al, add extra fields on the upload video form to have the user verify that the upload is authorized? The legislation passed and video sharing sites added questions on the form to verify the uploader is authorized to upload the content.

What happens is Bugmenot comes back to provide the right answers for those fields to people who want to upload infringing content. Of course, with YouTube alone receiving 48 hours of new footage every minute, Bugmenot will never be able to keep up with this rapidly expanding market. Innovative new services will spring up to compete...

Wait a minute, this will create new jobs and be a boon to the economy! They're freaking geniuses! Pass SOPA immediately!

Re: Re: Re:

No, SOPA is not asking to be held accountable on the same level it is a brand new level one that could lead financial institutions to create a whole set of payment systems that will erode US offerings.

Further it is not of your business what I do with what I bought, if I want to upload the entire Star Wars Saga to a locker room to get easy access to it, it is not your or anybody business but mine.

Re: Re: Re:

The issue isn't going to be random comment posts on a site, is it? That isn't the piracy issue anyone is attempting to address here.

Yes it is! If I posted the entire Twilight novel in a comment here, under the proposed changes to copyright law, Techdirt would be liable for my infringement.

Unless you're saying only some copyrights will be enforced. Music and movies get the censorship powers China can only dream of but books are just dead trees not worth protecting? You got yours and leave the publishers out to dry, huh?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If the law passes video upload sites like Break, Redtube, et al, add some fields to the upload video form to collect the information the content industry will sue them over.

After that, Bugmenot comes back to provide the right answers for those fields to people who want to upload infringing content. Of course, with YouTube alone receiving 48 hours of new footage every minute, Bugmenot will never be able to keep up with this rapidly expanding market. Innovative new services will spring up to compete...

Wait a minute, this will create new jobs and be a boon to the economy! They're freaking geniuses! Pass SOPA immediately!

It will, by definition, be overbroad, as there is no way to censor only illegal content without harming legitimate uses on sites as well. This is particularly true in light of the broad notion of “sites dedicated to infringing activity.”

It's a well-established matter of law that a small amount of protected speech does not inoculate against enforcement action. I don't find the qualifer "dedicated" to infringing activity at all broad. "containing" infringing material, yes. But not dedicated. Suggest he buy a dictionary.

Through their requirements to block websites, these bills will create a domestic Internet firewall designed to censor websites equivalent to the “Great Firewall of China” that is used to suppress information. If we implemented such a solution we would be setting a terrible example for the rest of the world, including countries we criticize for the same behavior like Iran, Syria, and China.

Doesn't seem to fathom (or want to fathom) the difference between political type speech and infringing content. Masnick, you should forward him Secretary Clinton's letter. He seems a bit slow. When have we criticized any country from cracking down on infringing?

They will burden companies with an onerous level of liability for all user-generated content. What the bills propose would be akin to requiring the phone company to be responsible for the legality of every phone call that takes place. With that kind of regulation, companies will spend more on lawyers and litigation than they will on hiring and innovating. Existing laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act already provide a satisfactory legal framework to remove copyright infringement and enforce intellectual property rights.

More FUD. Youtube manages it on a massive scale. And before the first halfwit cites the lawsuit, know that the lawsuit is about Youtube's behavior prior to it implemented its monitoring program.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The issue isn't going to be random comment posts on a site, is it? That isn't the piracy issue anyone is attempting to address here."

Yes it is! If I posted the entire Twilight novel in a comment here, under the proposed changes to copyright law, Techdirt would be liable for my infringement.

How does a single posting of "Twilight" among the rest of the drivel here rise to the level where Techdirt could be considered a site "dedicated to infringing activity" with no other legitimate purpose?

Re:

Perhaps that's the goal.

"Perhaps" nothing. That is the goal. The goal is to make it so that you have to directly deal with traditional content industries, or you spend thousands or millions of dollars on lawyers. It's to make it economically unfeasible to do anything but pay content industries off.

This bill has absolutely zero to do with "rogue sites." It is all about the content industries having another legal sledgehammer to use against sites like YouTube. They want to gain more power, to force more internet companies into "compliance" with "laws" that only they get to determine are valid.

It is a bill to block competition and free markets, pure and simple. "Piracy" has nothing to do with it.

Re: Re:

"Seems worth it, right?"

Not really. Sounds like your city has more money than they know what to do with. I hate it when people use car analogies for the internet. Street racing and copyright infringement are not even remotely similar.

For the street racers, I'd have sent a squad car down there a few times a night for a few weeks until all the street racers were gone.

For copyright infringement, I'd use the DMCA. You see, every time someone gets a bug up their ass to stop some activity that they see as bad (street racing, copyright infringement, whatever) we all lose. Now drivers in your town have some convoluted, bumfudge road to deal with, and we'll all end up with a convoluted, bumfudge internet to deal with.